N.H. toughens up its negligent hiker laws

Brian Jones said:
What I have not seen suggested are real alternatives to these kinds of laws by those who disagree with them -- Productive solutions.
.... prevention through education....
Click to expand...

I guess you must have missed my post.
 
I agree with the words of Doug Ritter, take the Search out of SAR. So I plan on getting a PLB this year, That will be my one huge Money wise survival item but hey how much money would it save if you broke your leg and say your wife was to small to carry your fat ass out, PLB to the rescue and yes still have survival items on you as well. Not saying that we all should have a PLB but I think for me it is a good idea especially if you go deep woods type of hikes.

RickJ
 
Ok i was going to stay out of this but i have to gloat:

SKIERS BANNED FOR LIFE & CHARGED FOR RESCUE: http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5h1xsPkVDyOEOTaz0JeXNmDelKFcA


QOUTE: Grouse spokesman William Mbaho said the group was specifically warned not to go into the hazardous area by a ski patrol member.

But Mbaho said as soon as that patroller left, the four males, in their late teens to early 20's, entered the area.

"They didn't just ignore or disobey the instructions of the patroller, they also violated the signage and the boundary markers," he said.

"They were putting their own lives at risk and subsequently the lives and safety of the people who had to go and rescue them."

Mbaho said the group will be banned for life from the mountain and their names will be circulated to all ski resorts in Western Canada.

The four will also be billed for the full cost of the search.

"This kind of incident cannot be tolerated. Transgressions of this kind must be dealt with in a way that sends a clear message to others who think of doing this kind of thing in the future that it won't be tolerated," Mbaho said.

The men, who Mbaho described as unco-operative and lacking emotion, refused to give their names to mountain officials.

"At this point, we've now left it in the hands of the RCMP to interview them," he said.

Mbaho said mountain officials are frustrated that recent events haven't convinced all skiers and snowboarders to tread carefully.UNQOUTE


these people are EXACTLY the type of people that i talk about that should have the book thrown at them and be billed for their idiocy. (and they were billed, full costs. Their parents will be footing the bill).

as for my previous post before, I'm sorry. I get a little ticked off when people say that SAR has no right to b--tch about the people they rescue, and that they should quit their jobs if they do complain. The above 4 people in the news links are the people we b--tch about, because we see it OVER & OVER & OVER & OVER & OVER & OVER & OVER & OVER AGAIN. Besides, venting about the rescue is part of the Critical Incident Debrief.
 
Last edited:
"Those that give up freedom for security neither deserve, nor shall they have either"

And a law like this my friends, certainly takes away your freedom to go into the woods in the manner you wish for the sake of saving the few who do not act in a responsible manner.

Laws like this take your freedom and I contend NOT ONE PERSON will be disuaded from acting irresponsibly because of the potential for needing rescue. There is a good reason for this. If you asked the last 100 people to be rescued "when you started out, did you think you would ever need to be rescued?" Every one of them would answer "NO"

So you WILL give up freedom and you WILL NOT get any security.

This is EXACTLY the method governments use to disarm their population.

We should have a sensible sized SAR team for an area based on the known dangers. They save as many as they can. The rest die. Others that would venture out see the report of their death and either take heed, or die similarly.

Again, it boils down to $.

For many of the examples given in this thread, the threat is not only to ones self, but the potential to harm others (Speeding, Drunk driving, etc.) and I will repeat again, these laws are designed for revenue, not safety. The agencies and lawmakers involved could give a rats a$$ whether you lived or died, they just want your money and statistically they know how much of it they will get in the next year.

SAR teams already have a budget. They need to use it wisely and save as many as possible and not feel guilty for those that they can't. I thank them for their efforts. They have a thankless job much of the time. Yes, I am comfortable with the fact that they can't save them all.

We don't need an alternative to the law, we simply don't need the law. The outdoors is already self regulating.

Freedom is taken away in little bites my friends.
 
timcsaw said:
I call it "accepting responsibility for one's own actions".

  • Choose to drive to fast=consequences... pay a fine.
  • Choose to drink and drive to fast= more consequences and a fine.
  • Choose to drink and drive to fast and kill someone=even greater consequences... you might even lose your house to pay the "reimbursement" for the persons life you took.
Click to expand...


  • Except that everything you listed is against the law. Hiking with minimal provisions isn't.

    If the police show up to my house because of a domestic dispute, I don't get charged for it. If the fire department shows up at my house to put out a fire that was my fault I don't get charged for it.

    This is the case because that is their job, and they are already paid for it.
 
who is paid? the VOLUNTEERS? maybe if your in the Coast Guard you get paid but not the local VOLUNTEERS

just saying
 
Bushman5 said:
who is paid? the VOLUNTEERS? maybe if your in the Coast Guard you get paid but not the local VOLUNTEERS

just saying
Click to expand...

If the people are volunteers that makes no difference. The equipment they use and the vehicles they operate are usually owned by the state. If so, then the state already has budgeted for their use i.e. no cost as incurred for the rescue. If they are privately owned the state hasn't lost any money, and thats the price one pays for volunteering.

Its really stupid to volunteer for a job only to complain when you are called upon to do it.
 
perhaps "complain" is the wrong choice of words. There is NOTHING wrong with voicing frustrations at constantly seeing the same types of people do the same stupid thing over and over and over again, resulting in a rescue. I/we are not b****** about the RESCUE DUTIES, i/we are b******* about the stupid act that is seen over and over, that results in the rescue.

get what i'm saying?

punish the stupid act.
 
Most of that is owned at the city and county level from Tax based funding. The costs of a rescue are astronomical compared to a police officer responding to a domestic, or even the FD responding and working a structure fire. Our ambulance district is tax based. Do you think we shouldnt bill for our services? Do you think if medicaid kicks back the bill because it is not a medical neccisity that my district should eat the bill?

I can tell you that the tax money is not big enough to fund anything other then truck, and maintnance, and fuel. We still have supplies, stations, wages, and many other things to pay for.

Alot of the volunteer FDs do bill for services if you dont pay dues to the fire district.

But what the hell, lets just not pay SAR teams, so that they cant afford fuel costs to run their equipment, cant pay for training( oh wait, the worker should have to pay for this out of his own pocket, after all he wants to volunteer:jerkit:), then when someone gets lost you will get a bunch of under trained, under equipped guys in helicopters that might not be reliable b/c of lack of maintnance. Then if they crash the idiot who got lost in the first place can sue them if the helo crashes, or they dont find em fast enough.

Take care of the people that take care of you. Yes guys volunteer b/c they enjoy it and its fun/cool/adventurous, but that doesnt mean that every time the call drops, that they arent sick, sleeping, busy, with family on holidays, birthdays, kids school functions etc. I think they deserve more respect then what they are given in not only this thread, but in the real world too.

Its like I say, the ones who dont yeild to emergency vehicles are the first ones to say "what took you so long?" when we do get them. I will awnser my calls everytime off duty or on duty, and be assured I will call out and bitch about the worthless system abusing, leeches on society. I guess I should quit. Or keep driving on, pluggin away, and making a differance where I can, bitching about leeches and stupid people along the way. Something needs to be done. There is a huge problem in this country with people abusing resources. This might not be the way, but at least its something. You understand the risks accociated with outdoor adventures, maybe this is motivation to be prepared for those risks.
 
Again, I thank all those that are involved in a rescue, whether paid or volunteer.

Again, I think they SHOULD receive adequate training and equipment.

And I will state again, charging idiots for rescue will not prevent future idiots from needing rescue.

If your goal is funding, just say it, you want revenue, don't disguise it as "we are sick of idiots needing rescue" because everyone here knows that it isn't going to prevent any.

It is a tax and a revenue.
 
PM, lets look at a different way maybe.....lets say that instead of billing for rescues (i'm talking rescues like the news link i posted above), lets formally charge those types of people with jail time to drive home the message that ignoring Out Of Bounds Signs and patrollers warnings, or goining into the backcountry with a tshirt and shorts and nothing else, will not be tolerated.

that way its NOT a tax or a revenue grab.

I still personally feel that hitting them hard in the bank account is the way to go (in addition to police charges) , but i'm curious to hear your thoughts on jail time only instead of fines....?
 
STAGE 2 said:
Except that everything you listed is against the law. Hiking with minimal provisions isn't.

If the police show up to my house because of a domestic dispute, I don't get charged for it. If the fire department shows up at my house to put out a fire that was my fault I don't get charged for it.

This is the case because that is their job, and they are already paid for it.
Click to expand...

True about the police and firemen examples you give... their departments will NOT charge you for the officer or fireman's time, materials etc. There is NO charge for their service.

BUT... Now lets see about any fines you might have to pay in regards to other laws associated to those call-outs... was the fire that you started intentional? Were your actions that caused the fire "reckless"? "Negligent"? There might be fines involved if so.

If no laws were broken for the domestic dispute, there will be no fines. But was their any "domestic violence"? "Disorderly conduct"? Violation of any number of other laws which might have fines?

===========================

Ignoring the orders of a F&G officer is against the law. If you act "recklessly" (a difficult standard to prove), you are (probably) breaking the law. Not following posted signage is (probably) against the law.

If you would, go back and read the examples I've given in my earlier posts, where I describe hikers or climbers who were not prepared for the trail. In every example I wrote, I tried intentionally to depict individuals who would clearly meet the standard of "reckless"... "Hiking without shoes"... "Wearing nothing but boots and their birthday suit" etc.. I wrote them to the absurd intentionally to be examples of "reckless" (the standard I can agree with). I'm not sure if those people would meet the "negligent" standard, or even the "gross negligent" standard that many other states follow.

The old (NH) law's "reckless" standard was hard to prove... it SHOULD be hard to prove. It should be VERY hard to prove. A person who will be prosecuted for "recklessness" should have been so obviously acting with disregard for their own safety and the safety of others, that it is easy to meet the "reckless" standard (the guy was naked, hiking in winter... obviously "reckless).

When they changed the standard to "negligent", it opened the door to the "other than obvious". A hiker bundled up like he was attempting a climb on Everest, but he forgot his gloves, or lost his gloves... not a "reckless" act, but "negligent"???? Hmmmmm.... maybe. "Negligent" is to weak a standard.

It should also be noted that some victims are charged with breaking laws outside of this discussion. Disorderly conduct... reckless endangerment etc. are also used in some cases. Additionally, though our discussion has been somewhat limited to "hiking", there are a vast variety of "groups" who use SAR; Fishermen, hunters, boaters, divers, surfers, skiers, mountaineers, sno-mobiles, 4-wheelers etc. ... the list is long.

One "law" won't adequately encompass all of these activities, or possible needs for SAR.

Let's increase "User fees" to participated in these activities... Can't do that because then only the "rich" will be able to go fishing.

Lets make everyone have insurance... Can't do that because then they might be more inclined to act crazy and/or abuse SAR.

Lets charge them every penny of SAR expenses... We've discussed that.

Lets charge them NOTHING for SAR... kinda discussing that.

Lets establish standard "fines" for rescue... better than charging total expenses, but still has some of the same problems.

This, Gentlemen.... Is a tough problem.
 
PrimitiveMan said:
Again, I thank all those that are involved in a rescue, whether paid or volunteer.

Again, I think they SHOULD receive adequate training and equipment.

And I will state again, charging idiots for rescue will not prevent future idiots from needing rescue.

If your goal is funding, just say it, you want revenue, don't disguise it as "we are sick of idiots needing rescue" because everyone here knows that it isn't going to prevent any.

It is a tax and a revenue.
Click to expand...

I don't see that it's tax and revenue here in NH... I see it more as a punishment. In one of my earlier posts I listed the amounts of money being charged to 4 people... not a lot of money. In the last decade, NH has spent over $1 million and only "charged" $25 thousand.... If it's a revenue grab... they ain't very good at it.;):D
 
That's $25,000 on top of their budget, which I realize may be strained, but hey, money is money, right? And this new law may actually be enforced more, so you can't really compare.

Jailtime might be a bit extreme, but it makes more sense.

If you want something that really makes sense, charge them with the crime and make the penalty 72 hours of service for the SAR team They can clean gear, hump supplies etc. so the actual rescue personnel can do their job more effectively. And require a 10 hour course on wilderness survival (yes, they have to pay for the course).
 
Last edited:
PrimitiveMan said:
That's $25,000 on top of their budget, which I realize may be strained, but hey, money is money, right? And this new law may actually be enforced more, so you can't really compare.

Jailtime might be a bit extreme, but it makes more sense.

If you want something that really makes sense, charge them with the crime and make the penalty 72 hours of service for the SAR team They can clean gear, hump supplies etc. so the actual rescue personnel can do their job more effectively. And require a 10 hour course on wilderness survival (yes, they have to pay for the course).
Click to expand...

I agree about the new standard of "neglegent"... could be setting up a future "revenue grab"... that's why I'm opposed.

The "serve SAR" in some way is a good start... that in concert with some other deterrents/punishments seems reasonable to me.

I just hate "laws" that punish "all" for the sake of the "few". If it's the "few" you want to punish, then be straight forward about it and punish THEM only.
 
Agreed.

You call for rescue, you should have to help those that need rescue in the future.

You may just find it a way to recruit future members of the SAR team from people who now realize the importance and want to give something back.
 
no way in hell would i want these idiots (the ones that disobey Boundary signs or F/G officers etc) working in SAR. hell no. That would be like rewarding them for their idiotic actions.

yay, if you go out of bounds you get to work in SAR if you get caught!

thats like rewarding drunk drivers with a truckload of booze and a free car or two....

hell no! they already have ZERO respect for rule regs and enforcers, no bloody way would i want them working alongside of any agency . NOPE, NADA :thumbdn::thumbdn::thumbdn::thumbdn::thumbdn:
 
Last edited:
Bushman,

Forgive me, I forgot you were born with outdoor skills.

I didn't say they would be REQUIRED to join an SAR team, I said they would have to do community service by doing Bit*h work.

Ya know, SOME drunk drivers actually want to give something back and DO teach the dangers.

But I don't think it matters to you what anyone says, you already know it all.
 
Last edited:
PrimitiveMan said:
"Those that give up freedom for security neither deserve, nor shall they have either"

And a law like this my friends, certainly takes away your freedom to go into the woods in the manner you wish for the sake of saving the few who do not act in a responsible manner.

Laws like this take your freedom and I contend NOT ONE PERSON will be disuaded from acting irresponsibly because of the potential for needing rescue. There is a good reason for this. If you asked the last 100 people to be rescued "when you started out, did you think you would ever need to be rescued?" Every one of them would answer "NO"

So you WILL give up freedom and you WILL NOT get any security.

This is EXACTLY the method governments use to disarm their population.

We should have a sensible sized SAR team for an area based on the known dangers. They save as many as they can. The rest die. Others that would venture out see the report of their death and either take heed, or die similarly.

Again, it boils down to $.

For many of the examples given in this thread, the threat is not only to ones self, but the potential to harm others (Speeding, Drunk driving, etc.) and I will repeat again, these laws are designed for revenue, not safety. The agencies and lawmakers involved could give a rats a$$ whether you lived or died, they just want your money and statistically they know how much of it they will get in the next year.

SAR teams already have a budget. They need to use it wisely and save as many as possible and not feel guilty for those that they can't. I thank them for their efforts. They have a thankless job much of the time. Yes, I am comfortable with the fact that they can't save them all.

We don't need an alternative to the law, we simply don't need the law. The outdoors is already self regulating.

Freedom is taken away in little bites my friends.
Click to expand...

You said it far better than I could have. :thumbup: I think it's an incredibly stupid idea. I'm absolutely amazed at the number of people that think it's a good idea. :eek:

As for "NOT ONE PERSON will be disuaded from acting irresponsibly because of the potential for needing rescue" - I don't disagree on the acting irresponsibly part, but I would say it might keep some people from going there in the first place. It wasn't likely that I would have visited NH before they passed this law but it's certain I'll never set foot there now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top